April 21, 2008

"[Obama] became friends with [William Ayers] and spent time with him while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen."

And here's the response from the Obama campaign:

"Unable to sell his out-of-touch ideas on the economy and Iraq, John McCain has stooped to the same smear politics and low road that he denounced in 2000. The American people can’t afford a third term of President Bush’s failed policies and divisive tactics."

Wow, they are on autopilot. Any criticism is met with bland disqualification: It's negative. Don't say anything negative. If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything.

Yeah, that is Obama's response to every critique, respond to a critique with a bland attack.

It's just proof that Obama is hiding something. Obama associates with terrorists and racists. If he isn't willing to defend himself on that charge, then not only must it be true, but there must be more.

McCain needs to start needling Obama for his unintellectual responses.

My favorite is Obama's position on taxes.

1. Obama said he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 per year.... EXCEPT, for a 12.6% employement tax on everyone making over $100k per year.... oh and a doubling of the capital gains tax. All for "fairness." Obama is so truthful.

Presumably, he will do this after meeting with the world's terrorists: Hamas, Iran, Cuba, North Korea. Maybe he feels that he has such a great relationship with Ayres, that he can equally charm these other terrorists.

Do they really think that this "McCain is running for Bush's third term" meme is going to work? I've heard it from both Clinton and Obama, so it's obviously their preferred line of attack (they can't run against McCain, it seems, so they're trying to run against Bush and bootstrap so doing into relevance), but it seems too silly to work.

For Obama: Sen. Coburn's support of the death penalty for abortionists included due process of law - a key distinction from Ayers' and the Weathermen's approach to their respective though equally unpopular views of justice.

And speaking of the Weathermen, have I missed it or has no one followed up on the eleventh-hour pardons Bill Clinton gave to the two Weatherterrorists in 2000?

McCain can personalize this one. He'll say, "Were you in the military when Ayers was bombing? Did you work as a civilian for the Department of Defense? Well, Ayers would have been happy to kill you; that would have been a great success for him and, to this day, he's sorry he didn't do more to accomplish that goal. And Obama's fine with that."

Then eliminate the income tax and you've got a pro-growth stable tax base. Surveys have found suprising agreement that the most anybody should have to pay in taxes is 25% of income, across all income lines.

I am with you on that one. But, Obama made it clear in his debate last week that increasing taxes is not about getting more money for the government (as Clinton saw it), it's about "fairness."

Therefore, don't expect a flat tax from him. Obama would be satisfied just taking money from people who earn it even if he only planned to later flush it down the toilet, just as long as those people were less wealthy.

I have never heard a serious mainstream democratic candidate talk about taxes in this way. Obama wants to use taxes as a way to bring equality, not from transferring money from rich to poor, but from the act of taking the money itself from the wealthy. It's reminds be of the Robert Mugabe policy to take farms from whites in Zimbabwe.

But, Obama made it clear in his debate last week that increasing taxes is not about getting more money for the government (as Clinton saw it), it's about "fairness."

Yeah, that's a HUGE opening. Play the tape, then voice-over "Senator Obama knows this kind of tax on investors will actually raise the deficit and lower the money the government takes in. But he doesn't care, since the tax hits people he believes don't deserve the money. Obama--mortgaging our future by using taxes as punishment."

In the same way Mugabe knew Zimbabwe would produce far less food and everyone both black and white would be worse off if he just took farms from whites, but he did it because he wanted the whites to own less farms.

JohnAnnArbor said...McCain can personalize this one. He'll say, "Were you in the military when Ayers was bombing? Did you work as a civilian for the Department of Defense? Well, Ayers would have been happy to kill you; that would have been a great success for him and, to this day, he's sorry he didn't do more to accomplish that goal. And Obama's fine with that."

McCain can also ask Obama: "So you disagree with Senator Coburn on criminalizing abortion. Fine. How then would you propose protecting the lives of Americans who are neurologically active and growing but still in their mothers' wombs?"

Presumably, he will do this after meeting with the world's terrorists: Hamas, Iran, Cuba, North Korea. Maybe he feels that he has such a great relationship with Ayres, that he can equally charm these other terrorists.

That's only if Carter doesn't beat him to it first.

Maybe he can give Jimbo the dual job of Sec of State and HUD Director.

You know, I've never understood the capital gains tax at all. The government wants to benefit from a good investment decision. Well, if so, shouldn't they pay the investor if the investor incurs a loss?

Well, if so, shouldn't they pay the investor if the investor incurs a loss?

Yikes, keep quiet. You are revealing the real truth behind conservatives, that they secretly would prefer no capital gains taxes at all. Imagine how the 130 million stock owners would react if they found out.....

MadisonMan said... Oh goody -- we get to re-fight the Vietnam war and the 1960s in this election too!

I watched McCain on "This Week".

He wasn't refighting the Vietnam war. In fact he said that he had reconciled himself with activists (he named somebody) and when we opened relations with NVN, had gone there and was at peace with them.

He made a clear distinction about Ayers and his unrepentant 21st century statement (that Ann cites by reference to McCain) that he wished they had bombed more.

Ayers, and the Weather Underground were (are?) Terrorists. They bombed to create terror. It is racist to only call Islamics terrorists. Abortion Bombers, ELF whachos and Anti-war types are terrorists just the same.

Ayers is a terrorist and Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Ayers is an enemy of the Constitution. QED. I have a problem with Obama on the topic.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."

That's actually a good tax, and the right ought to support it. It's a flat-rate tax, the best kind. Raise it but just make sure everybody pays it. Then eliminate the income tax and you've got a pro-growth stable tax base.

Not to hijack the thread here, but doesn't simple econ dictate that taxing an activity (e.g., work) leads to a decrease in said activity (resulting in decreased productivity, decreased GDP, etc.)?

I'm no economist, and will grant that I'm perhaps being naive about this. But does anyone have a good, concise counter to the above argument, which seems to favor some sort of consumption tax (perhaps with "prebates" equal to some standard exemption to make it less regressive) over income or payroll taxes?

"I know Obama said when he was in kindergarten that he wanted to be President. But he isn't still in kindergarten."

More like junior high or elementary school. I feel the ghost of Pee Wee Herman whenever Obama or his campaign responds to any criticism. "Oh yeah? Well, you're one too." "I'm rubber you're glue..."

Instead of dealing with criticism as adults, they deflect and try to cast blame on anyone and everyone else. "Everyone else (Bush/McCain) does it too." Or even worse whine about life being unfair. "Waaaah. They are being mean to me.....NO FAIR" Didn't his mommy or some other adult give him the advice that I heard from my parents? "Life isn't fair. Get over it." I guess not.

What next. Hold your breath until you turn blue if you don't get your way?

Is it a fair argument to say that Obama's policy to increase capital gains taxes = Mugabes policy to take farms from whites.

Sloanasauras,

You really need to put a sarcasm tag on some of your post because for a second there I thought you were seriously trying to equate raising capital gains taxes with kicking white farmers off of their ranches. Which you know, would be sheer lunacy except for someone who obviously lacks a fundamental understanding of pretty much either scenario.

"Not to hijack the thread here, but doesn't simple econ dictate that taxing an activity (e.g., work) leads to a decrease in said activity (resulting in decreased productivity, decreased GDP, etc.)?"

Sorry about helping you to hijack the thread, but absolutely. It has been proven time and time again but the left just refuses to acknowledge it. Speaking as one of the self employed (both my husband and I have separate businesses) we can control our income/expenses/deductions .... work less and keep more when taxes are too high.

In addition when taxes are raised too high and punitive laws are passed, requiring enormous outlay on their part (health insurance), business owners who must reduce costs to stay alive will take the most logical first step......lay off employees.

As to capital gains. Most people can defer realizing the gain until taxes are low enough to make it worth their while. So the gains stay embedded, not realized, not redistributed into the economy until the owner of the gain feels like it. The economy stagnates because the velocity of money is slowed to the pace of the I-10 in LA at rush hour.

Hoosier, I think it's safe to say that if Ayers were still a terrorist, he'd be in jail. To say he is a terrorist now is hyperbole.

MM,

Ayers admitted performing acts of terrorism. The FBI had evidence that he did, unfortunately, they didn't follow all the rules in collecting it, so a judge tossed the evidence. The fact that one can't convict somebody beyond a reasonable doubt in court doesn't change the fact that he committed crimes IMHO and I can call him a terrorist. Some quotes from the story he did for the NYT on 9/11 2001 when he was pimping his terrorist memoirs:

I like the liberal sprinkling of "Rove" and "Bush" as if these are majik words that deflect the criticism and make it go away.

Lots of Americans have problems with terrorist bombers and racists. Obama made huge errors in judgment for making them part of his life and thinking that he can ignore valid points about his past and current associations as reflections on who he actually is as opposed to the phoney image presented by a mostly fawning media. Just because Obamas cultists don't like it, doesn't mean he getsd a pass anymore.

The money you get through capital gains is largely inflation. To give an example, using numbers bearing some resemblance to the real thing:

Twenty years ago I bought a townhouse for $85k. Last year I sold it for about $185. Therefore, I made a $100k profit, right?

So the government should take away a hunk of that $100,000 to punish me (excuse me, to promote equality)? I lost money on that deal, when you consider how much I had to pay to get a smaller place.

Now, only the wildest Socialist would go after the money I made selling my house. And some of them are that wild, I've talked with them.

But if I invest a thousand dollars in Megatron Corp., and sell it after some years for two thousand dollars, they want a share of that thousand in profit - even if inflation means my current dollars are worth less than half of the dollars I invested. I lost money, dammit, why should I pay for the privilege just so Obama can claim he's going after the rich?

I ain't rich. I don't have a fraction of the money Obama does. But I guess being a capitalist pig means I deserve my punishment.

As to capital gains. Most people can defer realizing the gain until taxes are low enough to make it worth their while.

So what you are actually saying, is that it is not the rate of capital gains tax that matters, but the fact that the rate rises and falls depending on which party is in power that affects behavior. Since you know that if the tax goes up next year, another administration will come along and lower it a couple (or four) years from now, just hang on til it goes back down. That is what matters. If you knew the rate was going to stay the same for a long period of time, there would be no point in trying to game the system.

work less and keep more when taxes are too high.

Aren't you some kind of financial advisor? How on earth can you make such an ignorant statement? Don't you know how our graduated income rates are structured?

Twenty years ago I bought a townhouse for $85k. Last year I sold it for about $185. Therefore, I made a $100k profit, right?

Actually, on real property you get to depreciate the asset, plus it would have been generating income from rentals. Your profit would have been more than $100K.

Surely you are not talking about a residence, as everybody knows the profits from sales of a personal residence are tax free.

As for stocks. Yes, the capital gains don't take into account inflation, but certainly if you held a stock that long it must have been generating dividends. And would you rather pay the tax on the rise of the stock every year even while you still hold it?

He bombed, his group killed people, he wishes he did more, and dont regret it.

Actually, it didn't (other than its own members--they were pretty sloppy bomb makers). All the bombs they planted they called and warned that they were going to explode. Somebody could have been killed though, so I am not excusing their very serious crimes. But the fact is they were not intended to hurt people.

"Aren't you some kind of financial advisor? How on earth can you make such an ignorant statement? Don't you know how our graduated income rates are structured?"

Obviously you have never been self employed or never have had the 'wonderful privilege' of being an employer who gets to pay all sorts of wonderful taxes for their employees. Try to think like a business owner... rancher, construction company owner, plumbing contractor, real estate broker instead of an employee or government drone.

Of course I know how our "progressive" tax system works. I also know at some point income will outpace available deductions, making every dollar after a certain point, for some people, just not worth the effort when those additional dollars are added to the net/net on the tax return.

I leave those tax decisions up to the client's CPA, but you would be surprised (probably not) how many get this type of advice.

Ten years of Weather Underground politico/criminal mayhem culminated in a botched robbery of a Brinks armored vehicle in October 1981. In making off with $1.6 million, robbers killed one guard and two policeman. After a chase four people were arrested. Over the next 15 months several more suspects were rounded up. The complexity of the case necessitated multiple trials.

just hang on til it goes back down. That is what matters. If you knew the rate was going to stay the same for a long period of time, there would be no point in trying to game the system.

This is false. The lower the capital gains tax the more buying and selling you will get, and therefore the more realized capital gains will be taxed.

For example, if I am earning 5% on an asset, and I have an opportunity to earn 7% if I sell and buy a different asset, it may be worth it if the tax is only 15%. Therefore I will sell, pay the tax and buy the better asset. However, if the rate is 28%, as Obama wants, it may not be worth selling because my after tax return is actually less than holding the 5% asset. This reality is why increasing the capital gains rate reduces the government fisc. Moreover, the government also loses out on increased taxes from the better return and the economy suffers because more people are stuck earning the 5% rather than earning 7%.

Emotionally he is. The more I read about him the more struck I am with how 'young' he seems. He does not grasp the enormity of the US being a world power. He does not grasp the precariousness of the current financial situation. but then, while the US drowns in debt and the Fed continues to destroy the currency with inflation skyrocketing, both candidates are promising billions in new spending without explaining how the taxpayer will pay.

Obama doesn't care, just wants the wealthy to be less wealthy relative to the middle class and poor.

Actually, on real property you get to depreciate the asset, plus it would have been generating income from rentals.

Yes, but the depreciation reduces your basis in the property, thus increasing the capital gain. Therefore, this doesn't help much in offsetting the inflation impact on real capital gains from the property.

It is interesting that Obama is willing to meet with terrorists as a diplomatic strategy, while at the same time being a close associate with Ayres. It is definately not "Nixon going to China." It would be more like "Reagan going to Britain."

Obama has no experience in international affairs. Therefore, his idea of what a terrorist is must come from Ayres. Perhaps Obama believes that with a little love, Al Qaeda will quit their day jobs and become english professors.

All candidates seeking elective Federal office should be required to pass a high level economics course, have read and understood the government balance sheet, and understand the workings of the Federal Reserve and its monetary policy.

Prof. Lindgren of Northwestern's law school -- whom you know -- sits on that faculty with Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who is also a former member of the Weather Underground.

Do you agree or disagree with his judgment that "It seems to me that Obama's serving on the board of the Woods Fund for a few years with a former member of the Weather Underground is not fundamentally different from my serving for more than a decade on a law faculty with one"?

Prof. Lindgren of Northwestern's law school -- whom you know -- sits on that faculty with Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who is also a former member of the Weather Underground.

Didn't Dohrn argue in the 1960s, that Charlie Manson's killings were a good thing?

I agree with your point, serving with Dohrn is just as bad as Obama serving with Ayres. The only difference is that Obama is running for President as the head of state and representative of the American people. Its probably a good thing not to have a President who previously associated with terrorists. It takes away both his and America's moral standing in dealing with terrorists.

After all, if you want to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break a few eggs.

"In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint Michigan, whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in a high-heeled boots and a leather mini-skirt – her signature uniform – Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast." Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the most famous was actress Sharon Tate) Dohrn shouted:

Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"

Pogo--just a couple of crazy young kids out for a good time. The fact they are no longer in the business doesnt excuse their depraved indifference to other human beings--The were murderous scum; now they are educated murderous scum.

McCain can play Obama as just another radical to Bush. He could argue that America needs to maintain its image by avoiding radicalism on both sides. We don't want a president that condones torture anymore than we want a president that associates with terrorists. It's bad for our image.

Aren't you some kind of financial advisor? How on earth can you make such an ignorant statement? Don't you know how our graduated income rates are structured?

Clearly DBQ knows more than you appear to do. If say, my investments do very well and I make a $1000 profit and I decide to cash them in and say the cap gain rate is 40%, I would have to wonder whether it's even worth it to invest in the first place? Or a marginal tax rate in which every dollar beyond X amount gets taxed at a higher rate. Why should I bust my ass to make X more if the Fed ends up taking 40% or more of it? It's called the law of diminishing returns. At some point it simply becomes counter-productive to exert the effort just to make 40 or 50 cents on the dollar.

Freder, old wombat, you have to lay off the fembots. They're gnawing away at your attention span.

Yes, it was my residence. No, I didn't have to pay taxes on it. And yes, I have met socialists who think I should have. It was an example I was most recently and intimately involved with.

Mind you, those particular socialists think ALL non-job income should be taxed like self-employment income. Being intimately familiar with self-employment tax, it only makes me dislike them and their running dogs all the more.

Obama is, in this particular discussion, a running dog. Leader of the Pack, even. They want to take my money in furtherance of Social Justice? Gee, thanks!

If some guy living in my neighborhood was of the declared opinion that he didn't do enough terrorist bombings, I'd have to consider some sort of action to ensure the safety of my home (short of, you know, BOMBING him). If he was on faculty with me, I'd be forced to do everything in my power (short of, you know, BOMBING him) to make him want to leave (which the tenure and promotion process is perfectly suited for). These "people" are really no different from their hero Charlie, and should be treated as such.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen By DINITIA SMITH Published: September 11, 2001''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' (snip)

What is particularly annoying to me (and borders on the jr high / kindergarten comments above) is Ayers and Dohrn's claim that "it was a joke."

I was "there" in the late 60s .. we are the same generation ... and when the brownhouse in NY blew up (killing Ayers' girlfriend along with a couple others) no one thought it was a joke. A joke?

What kind of people are these?

I want an adult as the president of the United States.

I don't want to have as President a friend of a person (Dohrn) who laughs about someone sticking a fork in a murdered victim's belly.

According to the NY Times article she had 'recently' said that comments was a joke -- to mock the rich. Hey -- who cares about the murdered people and their families ... they were rich and deserved it. A joke.

For these Obama supporters everything questionable is either Karl Rove's fault, or a joke.

Here's a real world example. I'm the founder of an early stage high-tech startup. I need $7M to fund initial development to advance the company - most of that money goes to hiring and paying people.

My concept and intellectual property has been validated by AT&T Labs, Comcast's primary technical strategists and several others. Even so, finding people/organizations (Venture Capital groups) who will invest in the company is difficult, time-consuming and worse money consuming. I have spent my life savings and am nearing the end of my financial ability to continue. My business plan entails hiring over 100 people in very good paying jobs and also providing some bit of equity in the company. I truly want my employees to prosper.

However, if Obama (or Clinton) are elected before I get funding, I'm highly concerned that venture capital will dry up. I've been dealing with venture capital investors for two years and they are very bullish on the American economy over the long term, but it based upon their ability to put their money to work in that economy without huge guaranteed losses by taxation. If capital gains taxes are increased venture capital and other investment in the economy will decrease dramatically. The vast majority of advances in technology and alternative energy come from venture funded companies. Someone explain to me why I, my current employees and my potential future employees, should 'look forward' to an Obama presidency? Why should I vote for a person who wants to doom my business and thousands of others?

If one of your peers was a terrorist Law professor, who as I understand it, isn't licensed to practice law. who yelled in public: Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!"

Would you vote for tenure. Shouldn't the same moral character rules that preclude allowing her to practice preclude her from being a role model teacher?

I haven't heard the death to America chants coming from Vietnam in recent years.

I haven't heard them from Ayers and Dohrn, either. In fact, I'm fairly certain their opposition to the war in Vietnam ended when the war did. Certainly by the time they turned themselves in to the authorities, in 1980.

Ayers and Dohrn are exactly what they made of themselves: Poster terrorist-children for the unrepentant hard-core leftists in this nation. But for some slip-shod prosecution efforts they would have spent most of their lives in prison and rightfully so. That instead segments of our society socialize, support and enrich them is an indication of what lies beneath the thin veil of civility that many of the left wrap themselves in. We know quite well that Obama at least is tolerant of Weather Underground philosophy and Black Liberation Theology. The question is why? Is it pragmatic money-grubbing politics or something deeper?

My friends, I doubt John McCain even knows he's slamming Obama or why he's doing it. In fact, whenever I watch him, I get the sense that it's McCain who's on autopilot, rehashing lines and reading from the scripts that his campaign provides him with. This isn't a dig at his age, but he's just too old and too slow to be President.

Bumbling (hi, Sunni vs. Shiite) 73-year olds should not be trying to lead the most powerful nation on Earth...they should be retired and enjoying their lives with their hot rich wives.

Simon, am I starting 'Pin the Tail on the Donkey?' Your comment reminded me of the Pope's statement which concludes with 'God being pushed out of life' though I couldn't find the end of the statement, found in the NY Times: Afterward (he had just been at St. Patrick's Cathedral, ed.), speaking at the rally, Benedict made a rare reference to his upbringing in Nazi Germany. “My own years as a teenager were marred by a sinister regime that thought it had all the answers; its influence grew — infiltrating schools and civic bodies, as well as politics and even religion — before it was fully recognized for the monster it was.”

"Is the best thing you can come up with that John McCain gets the sunni-shia thing wrong?"

Well, if you put it like that...

Yes.

One of the only true areas where a President can directly affect change is foreign policy, i.e. starting wars. And if a President is so inept that he can't even identify what is going on in the area of the world where we're currently engaged in a war, I think that seriously disqualifies him. Note that McCain did this not once, not twice, but three times (at least publicly). He's just a confused, tired man.

I can list the reasons why Hillary shouldn't be President, but no one is going to spend 4 hours reading that list.

I've settled on Obama knowing full well that he is more about performance and showmanship...but that's all a President is, anyway...a big showman with no real constitutional authority.

And I'd rather have someone NOT interested in "bombing foreign countries"...Yikes, I can't believe someone would prefer a candidate because they thought he'd be MORE apt to bomb.

In 1970, Leonard and Felicia Bernstein held a fundraising party in their Park Ave. duplex to raise money for the Black Panthers. Wolfe wrote about the event for New York magazine, called "Radical Chic".

". . . and now, in the season of Radical Chic, the Black Panthers. That huge Panther there, the one Felicia is smiling her tango smile at, is Robert Bay, who just forty-one hours ago was arrested in an altercation with the police, supposedly over a .38-caliber revolver that someone had, in a parked car in Queens at Northern Boulevard and 104th Street or some such unbelievable place, and taken to jail on a most unusual charge called "criminal facilitation." And now he is out on bail and walking into Leonard and Felicia Bernstein's thirteen-room penthouse duplex on Park Avenue. Harassment & Hassles, Guns & Pigs, Jail & Bail--they're real, these Black Panthers. The very idea of them, these real revolutionaries, who actually put their lives on the line, runs through Lenny's duplex like a rogue hormone. Everyone casts a glance, or stares, or tries a smile, and then sizes up the house for the somehow delicious counterpoint . . . Deny it if you want to! But one does end up making such sweet furtive comparisons in this season of Radical Chic . . .

There's Otto Preminger in the library and Jean vanden Heuvel in the hall, and Peter and Cheray Duchin in the living room, and Frank and Domna Stanton, Gail Lumet, Sheldon Harnick, Cynthia Phipps, Burton Lane, Mrs. August Heckscher, Roger Wilkins, Barbara Walters, Bob Silvers, Mrs. Richard Avedon, Mrs. Arthur Penn, Julie Belafonte, Harold Taylor, and scores more, including Charlotte Curtis, women's news editor of The New York Times, America's foremost chronicler of Society, a lean woman in black, with her notebook out, standing near Felicia and big Robert Bay, and talking to Cheray Duchin.

Cheray tells her: "I've never met a Panther--this is a first for me!"

and"Radical Chic, after all, is only radical in Style; in its heart it is part of Society and its traditions."

Wolfe later remarked: "And then what I wrote about the Black Panthers at Leonard Bernstein's was taken as a reactionary gesture, but I had no political motive. I just thought it was a scream, because it was so illogical by all ordinary thinking. To think that somebody living in an absolutely stunning duplex on Park Avenue could be having in all these guys who were saying, 'We will take everything away from you if we get the chance,' which is what their program spelled out, was the funniest thing I had ever witnessed.

I was openly taking notes, but they just assumed that if I was there for New York magazine it was because I must have approved of what they were doing."

Another problem with raising capital gains taxes is the additional strain it will put on social security as retiring baby boomer feed at the government trough to make up for not saving enough for retirement. If anything, he should advocate reducing capital gains, perhaps even eliminating them all together or very long term investments (how about any mutual fund held for more than three years wouldn't be taxed if sold after the owner reached the age of 65.)

but that's all a President is, anyway...a big showman with no real constitutional authority

Huh? Seems Bush and a few past presidents have demonstrated quite a bit of authority in matters of waging war and conducting foreign policy not to mention the use of executive orders in curtailing freedoms at home (Lincoln, FDR)

I suppose I should have put the sarcasm tag on that note about McCain--fortunately were McCain elected and we then went to war it would put the end to the chickenhawk meme; both BHO and HRC will always be chickenhawks and can never take us to war (although Hillary can vote for it).

Frankly your logic escapes me: (1)you mention the president's role in foreign policy and war fighting in one paragraph as an important measure for not electing McCain because he is too old; (2) and then tell us you prefer Obama because he is an empty suit (my words, not yours--you were more delicate) and has no constitutional authority anyway thus not able to get us into trouble. Did I get that right?

Ever since 2004, the Democrats have been firm on one thing: They won't be "swiftboated" again. Nope. Not gonna let you get away with that, you evil Republicans. We took the high road before, and while that was the correct thing to do morally, in this depraved era, you Republicans are setting the standards. So now we're gonna draw the line!

That's what they say. But if you compare the Obama campaign's response to McCain's raising of the Ayers relationship, it is exactly the same kind of response Kerry gave to the Swift-Boaters! The "I-don't-have-to-dignify-this-with a response" hauteur. The grating invocation of a fact not anywhere near in evidence (e.g. McCain is certainly not "unable to sell" his ideas, given the fact he is now leading in most polls rather comfortably.)

What Kerry failed to do in '04 was to respond to the swift-boat attacks with facts to challenge their claims. He acted as if he shouldn't have to, and he was encouraged in this by his media cocoon. What independent voters deduced is that he didn't respond because he couldn't, because the allegations were true. This was a classic PR mistake.

Obama is making the exact same error here. Eventually, if he wants to win, he will "denounce" Ayers and Dohrn and throw up a firewall between himself and them that is unmistakable and will make these two benighted radicals feel like they've been tossed into cold Lake Michigan. But the longer he waits, the less benefit he will get from doing so. It's my impression that independent voters are deserting Obama in droves.

Eventually, if he wants to win, he will "denounce" Ayers and Dohrn and throw up a firewall between himself and them that is unmistakable and will make these two benighted radicals feel like they've been tossed into cold Lake Michigan.

This point is the true benefit of the lengthy democratic primary for John McCain - that is to lock Obama into his associations and positions. He can't distance himself from Wright and Ayres and Dohrn until he wins the nomination. By that time it will be too late.

There will be more to come too. I am sure Obama has many other associations that we don't know about yet - associations that Obama probably never thought would haunt him, Oh yeah, there is also that prickly out of the mainstream abortion position he has.

The president generally has more authority in non-domestic affairs than he does domestically. McCain, a serially confused self-proclaimed war expert who's continually wrong about war, would be a dangerous president.

Obama, the "empty suit," may be inexperienced but I believe that his lack of experience would make his decision making skills that much more reasonable...he wouldn't do anything until he made sure it was a well informed decision. Plus he's, I believe, a non-violent, morally good man.

Of course, the president has to be able to act quickly and maybe, in the event of a crisis, we don't need someone taking forever to make a decision. But I'd rather have a delayed, correct decision than a trigger happy, rushed, incorrect one.

He can't distance himself from Wright and Ayres and Dohrn until he wins the nomination.

I grant your overall point about Obama needing to continue tacking left til he wraps the nomination.

But I don't see how that restrains him from denouncing these criminals? Is there really a constituency on the left anymore for mad bombers from wealthy families? Obama's sticking with Ayers/Dohrn at this juncture is strategically worthless, pigheaded and -- like a lot of Obama's content lately -- unsettling in what it says about his true readiness for the office of the presidency.

Another problem with raising capital gains taxes is the additional strain it will put on social security as retiring baby boomer feed at the government trough to make up for not saving enough for retirement.

I recall in the '90's Sam Donaldson during ABC Sunday morning news broadcast saying that social security 'means testing' should be instituted by gov because of unfunded liabilities. It didn't happen but with the current $44 trillion in unfunded liabilities, in the next few years this could become a reality.

The idea that no politicians should be civically engaged in things Ayers is involved with is pretty stoopid.

No it isn't. Politicians work behind the scenes to avoid these kinds of embarrassments all the time. You put the onus on the foundation or whatever: "Bill, we need you to resign from the board or else we can't get Obama, who can do a lot more for us." This is a commonplace occurrence.

You act like Obama was helpless in this situation, that Ayers was some kind of troll guarding the bridge of civic life in Chicago. But I doubt Mayor Daley hangs much with him and his ilk.

Shunning is alive and well, and perhaps Obama should've tried it. Evidently, the thought that his conscience should be disturbed by associating with this civicly-active serial attempted murderer didn't cross his mind.

There's a school of thought that Obama never thought he'd come this close to being president, that he just knew Hillary had it locked up. His tonedeafness on Ayers is evidence for that proposition.

Another problem with raising capital gains taxes is the additional strain it will put on social security as retiring baby boomer feed at the government trough to make up for not saving enough for retirement.

But of course most retirement funds are treated specially by the tax code (not as ordinary capital gains). E.g., distributions from both regular IRA's and 401(K)'s are treated as ordinary income, not capital gains. So for many, if not most, seniors, changes to capital gains taxes aren't going to affect them much.

John Stoddard: good points all. By the time Obama has to start tacking right (assuming he gets the nomination) he will have provided a host of soundbites for the RNC as well as make John Kerry look absolutely steadfast!

Hillary has forced him to run left of her for the primary voters, and while that appeals to the Kos kids and DUers, the electorate is to the right of Hillary. and John McCain is going to own all of that ground, I think.

The only thing the dems can come up with is McCain's age--and thats a winner with an aging population, I bet.

You act like Obama was helpless in this situation, that Ayers was some kind of troll guarding the bridge of civic life in Chicago. But I doubt Mayor Daley hangs much with him and his ilk.

All this fuss about Ayers. Where was all this concern when Bush allowed a terrorist who blew up a passenger plane with 90 odd people aboard stay in the country not less than a year ago. I guess since he is an anti-Castro terrorist, that is okay.

Obama was even recently involved in his own radical chic, when the Obama campaign let its official website carry an endorsement from the black supremacist New Black Panther Party.

It wasn't removed until March.

From their website:"We believe that since the white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind, and used every “dirty trick” in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence, that we should be gainfully employed until such time we can employ and provide for ourselves.We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!

We want tax exemption and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We want an end to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all of its forms: imperialism, criminal settler colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, sexism, zionism, Apartheid and artificial borders. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of reparations. A form of reparations was promised 100 years ago (forty acres and a mule) as restitution for the continued genocide of our people and to in meaningful measure and repair the damage for the AFRICAN HOLOCAUST.

We believe our people should be exempt from ALL TAXATION as long as we are deprived of equal justice under the laws of the land and the overdue reparations debt remains unpaid. We will accept payment in fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency. As genocide crimes continue, people’s tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute.

We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! “UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL!” BLACK POWER! History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man’s wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice."

The irony is, if you read the comments on Salon, HuffingtonPost and other liberal sites, there are a substantial number of commenters who see Obama as a corporate sellout who will be no better than Bush. Edwards won these voters' hearts and they still burn for him.

If I were a Democratic campaign manager, I would call into question the "tacking left in the primaries" strategy. There is no evidence that it actually works, and there is a lot of evidence that doing the contrary can work.

2. Then BHO made a big stink about having visited Pakistan as a young man.

Odd.

3. Frankly if they pass a 12.6% tax over $100k then I'll just ask to have my income reduced and replaced by another couple weeks of vacation time. IMO I pay enough in federal taxes as it is. Any more and I might as well emigrate to Australia or something.

4. I find the situation with Obama and Ayers interesting. Add to that Bill Clinton's Presidential pardons of other fellow members of th Weather Underground. Then there's Jimmy Carter's long associations and friendships with acknowledged terrorists.

Where was all this concern when Bush allowed a terrorist who blew up a passenger plane with 90 odd people aboard stay in the country not less than a year ago. I guess since he is an anti-Castro terrorist, that is okay.

Freder, Bush isn't running for President anymore.

Considering many of the left think Bush is a terrorist himself, its rather ironic folks like yourself shrug off his association with an un-repentant former terrorist.

All of this is pretty much pointless at this stage anyway. Little short of a Larry Craig incident will scare off any of his followers and even then...

His association with a racist pig like Wright pretty much shut me off to him back then. His association with Ayers really doesn't come as much of a surprise. Birds of a feather and all that.

"We want tax exemption and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST."

You know this is rather amusing.

I pointed out to a black friend of mine that blacks in America are very very lucky that whites are in charge. He asked why and I pointed out that most Asians couldn't give a rat's ass about slavery 150+ years ago and any whining about special treatment because of being black would be met with unrestrained laughter.

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes.

Ayers bombed the Pentagon? I don't think so. As I recall, he was not a bomber.

Hey, instead of making stuff up, people could always listen to what he says: 1. Regrets. I’m often quoted saying that I have “no regrets.” This is not true. For anyone paying attention—and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways—life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say “no, I don’t regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.” Sometimes I add, “I don’t think I did enough.” This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.From Bill Ayers' website.

A guy sitting on board who just happened to be one of the first to select Obama for Chicago, a guy who is an unrepentant terrorist, married to a woman who thought sticking a fork in a pregnant woman's belly was really rweally cool. Wild!

Pogo, I heard him and Bernadine speak at my college years ago. it was clear he was not the one who bombed. (And they turned me off at the time with their rhetoric).

You selectively edited from the newspaper article you link to, misleading readers here with your falsehoods:

But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.''

"Bomb" is a figure of speech. Have you ever "been bombed?" Ever seen a performer "bomb?" In either case are you suggesting terrorism is involved? There are many other examples and you're being too literal to simultaneously claim higher order thinking processes.

Here's a letter he sent to the NYT in response to the article you cite. Somewhere among the two pieces lies the truth.

Bullshit.That's the very first sentence of the article, unedited. I don't give a shit what Ayers thinks he says he said or wished he'd said. I find him even less truthful than the NYTimes, and that is saying something.

Yes, he is a terrorist because he was involved in the planning. "in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.''. What a weasel; can't even admit what he did or didn't do straight up. Coward. Screw him.

OK, now find some other source to back up your claim that he bombed. And not some right wing source. There should be something out there on the web.

His Wikipedia entry doesn't support your claim.

The article you cite from your favorite paper* doesn't support your claim.

Back up your allegations that he was a bomber.

The full paragraph: ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

False. I act like it's not relevant to the selection of the next President. It's a bullshit issue.

It's not the biggest issue in the world, but it's part of the mosaic of who Obama is. And who Obama is, is the biggest issue of all.

My reading of history is that our best presidents have been people with character, intelligence and strength.

Of the three remaining candidates, the only "fresh face" is Obama. So, naturally, the focus is on him. And conversely, the more Obama's spokespersons say the focus shouldn't be on him, but instead on some list of hot button issues, the more questions that raises. Why doesn't he want us to know about him? Why is it a distraction to try to determine who influences him, who he associates with, who does he owe?

If Obama thinks he's gotten this far because of his position on the issues, he's crazy. He's a run of the mill Democrat. There are no "new politics" in his issues stances. He's running as Mondukaclintgorkerry. There isn't a position he's taken that his predecessor Democratic presidential nominees couldn't embrace.

Nothing new about him at all -- except his biography. The attractive character he portrayed in the pre-March portion of his campaign -- that's what got him this far. His books. His speeches. Certainly not his accomplishments, not his deeds, and not his especially creative or contrarian positions. If you want new politics, look at Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, which was genuinely daring, risky and exciting.

So, if the guy is going to try to win the presidency based on his character and persona, that's where all the questions are going to go. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Obama raised the character issue, so he has to take what comes with that. He can't go all "hey, what about the issues?" when the character questions get rough.

Has Cindy McCain repented of her drug addicted, charity robbing ways? To me McCain's overlooking these character flaws, apparently so he can cling to Cindy's hundred million dollars of beer money (but we don't know all the sources of McCain wealth, because Cindy won't release her tax forms) is far more damning than Obama's saying hi to his neighbor.

To me McCain's overlooking these character flaws, apparently so he can cling to Cindy's hundred million dollars of beer money (but we don't know all the sources of McCain wealth, because Cindy won't release her tax forms) is far more damning than Obama's saying hi to his neighbor.

You could be right, but then Michele Obama has never been proud of her country. So which do you want? the one that despises her country or the recovering prescription drug addict who won't release her tax returns.

Come on Alpha. If McCain had a close relationship with a former KKK member who burned down black churches in the 1960s, you would be going crazy. The problem (for you) is that McCain is a mainstream American. He doesn't associate with radicals. Obama, is not mainstream - he associates with radicals.

Shortly before noon on Friday March 6, 1970, members of the Weather Underground were building a nail bomb intended to be set off at a noncommissioned officers dance at the Fort Dix, New Jersey Army base that night.[2][3] The bomb, a makeshift anti-personnel weapon studded with roofing nails, exploded prematurely, killing Theodore Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins.

He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. But Mr. Ayers also seems to want to have it both ways, taking responsibility for daring acts in his youth, then deflecting it. ...

''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.

I must remind myself not to keep arguing with people who are being deliberately dense.

Ayers founded the Weathermen. Here's Wikipedia on the subject:

Their founding document, signed by 11 people, including Mark Rudd, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Bill Ayers, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Karen Ashley, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, and Steve Tappis, called for the establishment of a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" and other "anti-colonial" movements,[1] to achieve the goal of "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world Communism."[2] The statement noted, "A revolution is a war; when the movement in this country can defend itself militarily against total repression it will be a part of the revolutionary war."[2] The group's first public demonstration was the "Days of Rage," an October 8, 1969 rally in Chicago that was coordinated with the trial of the Chicago Eight.[3]

In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO), and members adopted fake identities and pursued violent covert activities. They carried out a domestic terror campaign in the United States, consisting of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots. Their attacks were mostly bombings of government buildings between 1969 and 1975, although they were also notable for the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members in 1970.

So, AL, please, it is utter sophistry for you to continue to insist Ayers is not a bomber. The whole point of the Weather Underground was to bomb things. If you're trying to split hairs saying, well Ayers might've wanted to bomb that building but he didn't actually put the bomb there himself, then...ach. What are you trying to say? I can't even figure out why you're persisting in this dumb argument.

In the grand scheme of things, Ayers is unimportant. Fine. Go tell the swing voters that. Your logic obviously persuades you, maybe it will work on independents and moderate Dems; and the Democratic Party will prosper in 2008.

One other note about Education Professor Ayers not having the brains to help with bombing:

The Weathermen weren't really a "brains" kind of operation. For example, the three Weathermen who blew themselves to bits trying to make a bomb in 1970 were (a) a writer (and college dropout), (b) a sociology major, and (c) an education major. The latter was also Ayers' girlfriend.

By the McCain standards, his continued association with Cindy during her drug-addicted, charity-robbing period is open to question, and his failure to divorce her borders on the outrageous. I won't let the matter rest until McCain condemns Cindy.

C'mon, you're creative. There's got to be a better argument you can pull out of your ... hat.

This is exactly what I stated earlier. It doesn't matter what Obama's affiliations or associations are because those bent on him as president will excuse anything at this point. Seriously, Wright, Rezko and now Ayers and the faithful like Alpha simply deny or spin it or like FLS figure well Cindy McCain was a drug addict so what's the big deal about some former terrorist?

When the debate has come to that level, we may as well comment on American Idol. Its pretty much the same.

Bombing and hating America is part of the fabric of this great nation. It's who we are. Now when you have a half term Senator who's written 2 autobiographies before the age of 45 , we had all better listen up when he says questions about such matters are "manufactured", [unlike the bombs that were not manufactured]. Our House of Lords was just too small and beneath this great mind, and I'm sure Middle America will have no problems with these associations. They always come around in the general election. Right Democrats?

1992 privately via an intervention. 1994 publicly when she realized a local paper was about to cover the story, and when a former employee threatened to expose her if she didn't pay him a quarter million dollars.

By the McCain standards, his continued association with Cindy during her drug-addicted, charity-robbing period is open to question, and his failure to divorce her borders on the outrageous.

Oh, please. Apart from the noxious "equivalency" of your raising this now, apart from the absurd double standard that forgives someone for recreational drug use that was purely for a buzz but is harsh on those whose addiction stemmed from excruciating physical pain, Mrs. McCain does not make a career out of being an ex-painkiller popper who proudly recounts her drug-seeking days, while Ayers continues to defend his good intentions and basically trades off his radical-chic fame to obtain whatever credibility he has now.

Also, McCain didn't know she was an addict until she came clean and went for treatment.

"Covering up one's wife's stealing drugs from charity is a tad bit worse than saying hi to a college professor neighbor who was a terrorist over 30 years ago."

That's a pretty disingenuous comparison.

Their relation ship is more than just saying "howdy neighbor" while mowing their lawns. It isn't as if they accidentally found themselves standing together in line buying arugula at the local Whole Foods Store.

Covering up one's wife's stealing drugs from charity is a tad bit worse than saying hi to a college professor neighbor who was a terrorist over 30 years ago.

Exactly how long ago is it ok to have helped murder innocent people?

I'm not sure why I'm trying to talk you out of this, really. "Sure, Obama did personally cocaine and buddied up with terrorists, but McCain failed to abandon his drug-addicted second wife after she stole painkillers from her chairty" is a line of attack I'd *like* to see the Democrats use. :)

FLS slipped something past me when he redefined the Cynthia McCain story as John McCain "covering up" his wife's stealing.

That's false. The US Attorney in the case agreed not to disclose what happened in exchange for financial restitution. The guy who discovered the theft filed a wrongful termination suit, Mrs. McCain charged extortion, the press picked it up and at that point, Mrs. McCain publicly disclosed what she'd done.

There has never been any allegation that John McCain "covered up" anything. He was not a party to anything that happened with respect to her drug thefts, and had no power to cover it up. He didn't go out of his way to disclose it, but in Obama-world, is that equivalent to a cover-up?

You obviously don't understand capital gains taxes in regard to real estate (or stocks or anything else) or why Obama's desired cap gains tax increases are similar to Robert Mugabe confiscations and result in everyone being poorer. Let me explain.

Consider this: I bought a 5 family apartment building 15 years ago for $100,000 ($20,000 a unit for 5 units). Since then inflation has averaged about 3% per year, making the property now "worth" close to $160,000. That is a $60,000 "capital gain" under current law.

This property has never cash flowed , but merely broke even. There has been a small "tax loss" which I consider my only compensation for the burden of all the work I have personally done on the property over the years. If you have ever had rental property you would know what I mean. The rate per hour has been very low, trust me, even after taxes.

Now 15 years later, I can still buy the same number of loaves of bread with the $160,000 that I could with the $100,000 15 years ago.

I am really sick and tired of putting up with these tenants for the last 15 years and I would like to quit and make other investments.

If I decide to sell the property for $160,000, I will have, adjusted for inflation, in reality made no money on the property. I will however subject myself under Obama, to potential capital gains taxes as high at 35% or more on my $60,000 capital gain, or approximately $20,000. That will result in me losing $20,000 over the life of the investment. Mugabe - OBama has essentially confiscated, not my whole farm, but just 1 of the 5 units of it, even though I made no money on the farm for 15 years. A farm btw is a good metaphor for apartments. I have worked on farms and I have owned apartments. They involve similar amounts of work, at least for small owners like me.

To you, Dust Bunny, I suppose that is "fair", since I guess you don't have the privilege of owning such glamorous property like rich people like me. Plus you probably think evil capitalist like me deserve to have my property confiscated to satisfy your and Obama's uninformed sense of fairness.

What happens in reality to folks like me is that we never sell our property when capital gains taxes are this high and the government receives zero revenue for the entire 15 years.

Personally, I am tired and would like to take my money and invest it in biomedical or energy research. I think this might be a better allocation for society and I might make more money. But no, no, because to the soak the rich class warfare O'bama followers think this would be unfair.

Get with reality, dude!

Note: And yes, for you tax experts out there, my actual basis would be lower than $100,000, since I have been depreciating the property for 15 years. Well rest assured the 35% tax will apply to the amount depreciated, too, making my tax bill even higher than in the example. I made the example simple on purpose to make it easier to understand by the morons that think this is fair and that they and society will benefit for raising this tax.

Best regards,

Tom of the Missouri, A bitter, gun loving, God fearing, fly over country landlord and private housing provider.

Obama's brain trust has seized in the deflection strategy where any issues of his performance, ethics, and judgment are dismissed as "deflecting" the Great Man from dealing with the Great Issues. And "distracting" voters from "the real concerns" they have but are too bitter and ignorant to understand.The best way to think of it as it is a repeat of Nixon's Watergate strategy. What it said about Nixon was unimportant trivial stuff "dwelling on the negative" and diverting both Voters and the Great Nixon Himself from dealing with "more significant affairs" of the economy and world peace and the war on cancer.Meanwhile, of course, the Black Messiah will cling to his trivial speeches and clouds of vapor generated as positive and significant - attesting to the Great Man's Great Judgment despite having no experience: "Like Vladimir Putin, Saddam, Susan Sarandon, Jesse Jackson, I demonstrated my Greatness in 2002 by opposing war in Iraq out of Leftist principles because my radical, ex-SDS wealthy Leftist Jewish Chicago benefactors and ex-Black Panther, NOI foot soldiers demanded I do so." Axelrod and his intelligensia & money people have spun it as proof of Obama's genius. Just as they were all familiar with Nixon's Watergate deflection/distraction theory because they all heard it daily when they were on the other side, demanding the Nixon-Hitler's head.

Now when you have a half term Senator who's written 2 autobiographies before the age of 45 , we had all better listen up when he says questions about such matters are "manufactured", [unlike the bombs that were not manufactured]. Our House of Lords was just too small and beneath this great mind, and I'm sure Middle America will have no problems with these associations. They always come around in the general election. Right Democrats?

Garage Mahal - excellent! I love the analogy about a guy so full of himself he wrote 2 autobiographies before 45 while doing nothing with his life other than having law students vote him in as a compromise candidate for law review editor and convincing key billionaires in Chicago and Hollywood he is the Black Messiah while also slumming with blacks outside his U of Chicago and elite social circles to convince them he is "authentic niggah to the core".

Ask any cocky, preening arrogant narcissist you have the misfortune to know how many books or videos they have made so far showing Their Greatness.

They are pikers compared to Black Messiah...

*******************

rhhardin said... for a 12.6% employement tax on everyone making over $100k

That's actually a good tax, and the right ought to support it.

It's a flat-rate tax, the best kind. Raise it but just make sure everybody pays it.

Then eliminate the income tax and you've got a pro-growth stable tax base.

Nothing gets the super rich and their bootlickers so excited as the idea of the "fair tax" where poor people pay 70% of their income in essential living expenses and new "fair taxes", middle to upper middle income Americans pay 60% of wages in basic cost of living plus their total tax load, and the 3.2 billion dollar hedge fund manager pays 15% of each dollar made in total taxes (with huge capital gains discounts) and with the pittance of a billionaire's basic cost of living expenses.

The fact a "fair Federal income tax" would cause the super rich to pay less total taxes and burden 99.5% of Americans with more taxes doesn't trouble the super rich and their bootlickers in the slightest.

What could be fairer than a waitress making 30K paying 6K in private health care insurance she can't deduct like a wealthy business owner can, paying FICA every hour of her work vs. a fatcat paying it off in the 1st few hours of work, then adding in all the regressive state and local taxes, 10K in essential living expenses - leaving her with 4,000 in disposable income - about 1 7th of her work income?

Most of the traditional flat taxes "every one pays 23% of what they make to the Feds" what could be fairer???" While of course shutting up about such "fair federal income taxes" except anyone who makes over 90K remaining tax-free on FICA and any lesser American gets all their money from hedge funds, oil rigs, Owner-operated businesses, and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than working class scum...

Even schemes like 12.6% employment above 100K hit the factory manager making 170K working 80-hour workweeks harder than the mine-owner making millions and exempt from "employment taxes".

A true fair tax? One that subtracts essential living expenses from the taxpayer and dependents, then adds up all state and local and federal taxes and fees then taxes on Fed income tax accordingly so that each American has the same burden on each dollar made so what is left - disposable income left for the individual to be free to spend or invest - is the same.

[Income - (essential living expenses) -(all government taxes and fees) = fair disposable income with will be roughly the same for each American per dollar made]

Apology accepted. Damn right we agree. The capital gains tax will literally kill the economy. People think we are in a recession now, (which by definition we aren't..close maybe) just wait until you stop the flow of cash from cap gains. Plus, in many cases, all that depreciation you took?.... well, you get to recapture it and pay taxes on it when you sell.

rhhardin said... for a 12.6% employement tax on everyone making over $100k

That's actually a good tax, and the right ought to support it.

Good for who?? Certainly not the people who have to pay it, for FICA SS and other types of payroll taxes, that the payees will see very very little return on their taxes. Most of that money goes to support welfare and entitlement programs. 'scuse me if I would rather take that 13% of my income and invest it for myself. When I think of how I could have invested the amount of money taken from me over my lifetime for SS and other programs....it makes me sick. Even invested in a bank savings account earning an average of 3% over the years. I would be so much better. Plus the money would be MINE!!!! to use as I see fit and to will to my heirs if I die young. People who are so freaking concerned about the bleeding crowd and minorities should be all over this. More minorities (blacks) die before they ever use their SS funds.

What could be fairer than a waitress making 30K paying 6K in private health care insurance she can't deduct like a wealthy business owner can, paying FICA every hour of her work

Hey, she qualifies for the free medical care provided by the taxpayers already. So, change the tax laws. Then she can deduct the premiums, IF she is paying them. Lest anyone think that I'm uncaring, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and I worked my way up from being a waitress and collecting food stamps. I'm just sick of subsidizing people and being raped by the government and told that I should be thrilled to be somebody's meal ticket.

Wealthy business owner!!! HA HA HA. Sterotype much? Most business owners are small businesses and are struggling as much if not more than their employees. Ever owned a restaurant? I have.

A true fair tax? One that subtracts essential living expenses from the taxpayer and dependents,

Really? Define what those essential expenses are and how you are going to compensate for the living expenses in San Francisco vs Biloxi. I can assure you it costs a HELL of a lot more to live in poverty in SF than Biloxi. Under your plan the people with the most dependants/children win the tax lottery.

then adds up all state and local and federal taxes and fees then taxes on Fed income tax accordingly so that each American has the same burden on each dollar made

No provisions for the business owner? You know the ones who are providing the income/jobs for his employees. The one who has extra "living" expenses like liability insurance, licenses, overhead, building maintenance, payroll taxes, insurance premiums.

so what is left - disposable income left for the individual to be free to spend or invest - is the same.

Well, hell, why don't we just take everyone's entire income and give us all an allowance that the Government deems suitable. Right on!! I really look forward to being an indentured servant of the Government and the bulk of society that doesn't produce anything. Serfdom here we come. If this is your plan, expect me and hundreds of thousands of others to just quit working. There would be no point.

My personal reality is that I have some buildings that make money and some that don't . I really would though like to quit, take a break and reinvest elsewhere.

I have some situations like my example. Some better. My overall situation is that even with the current 15% cap gain tax, I would have to surrender at least half my paper net worth to the tax man if I ever cash out. That is a net worth that I have worked hard for for 25 years. With Obama's hoped for rates, I would almost be wiped out completely if I sold out. That is a massive disincentive to ever sell anything or ever pay any capital gains taxes most likely resulting in zero revenue to the govt. In the debate, Obama, who with his great intellect apparently understands this, said he was for raising the taxes in the name of fairness, even if the government got reduced revenue or in my case no revenue. This is bad tax policy and bad social policy. Prior to Reagan, when Dow Jones was at 700 and when cap gains taxes were astronomical, venture capital and silicon valley and things like them practically did not exist.

After Reagan's massive cap gains tax reductions the U.S. embarked upon a 25 year investment boom that left the world behind and gave us one of the worlds lowest unemployment rates. Punish capital and there won't be any to tax and you will get no investment and no innovation. With high cap tax rates the truly rich will simply put their money in tax free bonds and go the country club to sip drinks and play golf instead of building businesses that employ people. A much greater number of working stiffs like me will never be able to retire and put their modest sums of money to a better use. The Hillary and Obama demagogues apparently don't care as long as they get elected with their never ending appeals to envy and other base instincts of their uninformed and economically illiterate supporters.

Regards,

Tom of the Missouri

P.S. Dust Bunny, I love ya, or at least your comments throughout this post. I don't come here often, do you?

A true fair tax? One that subtracts essential living expenses from the taxpayer and dependents, then adds up all state and local and federal taxes and fees then taxes on Fed income tax accordingly so that each American has the same burden on each dollar made so what is left

Again Ceder, I get the goal of your tax philosophy, however, I am not sure how it would be implemented. Most of the flat tax proposals have an exemption limit to cover what you argue are "living" expenses. Thus, under the flat tax, the first $30k is exempt and every dollar above is taxed at a flat rate. Is this what you are arguing for?

We almost have a flat tax now, its just a lot more complicated to compute.

said he was for raising the taxes in the name of fairness, even if the government got reduced revenue or in my case no revenue. This is bad tax policy and bad social policy.

It's not just bad, it's marxist. At least the capital gains tax supporters back in 1980 could argue there wern't enough facts to prove that tax revenues increased when capaital gains taxes were cut. Today, the facts are clear.

The big cut in cap gains rates occurred in 1978. It made long term gains only 40% taxable at your income bracket, for a max rate of 28% (it had been 50% since 1969). Reagan's 1981 tax cut lowered the top rate on unearned income (inc. dividends & interest) from 70% to 50%. It also lowered all earned income brackets 25%, and the 60% exemption remained, so the max long term cap gain rate was 20%, until the 1986 tax bill raised it back to 28% until 1998.

I see the tax for those of us in the lower brackets will be 0% for 2008-10. Wouldn't you know I had a big gain in 2007, and the stock I'd like to sell some of (wachovia) has plummeted more than 50% this year.